A Review on Mitigating Fear and Aggression in Dogs and Cats in a Veterinary Setting

A high proportion of dogs and cats are fearful during veterinary visits, which in some cases may escalate into aggression. Here, we discuss factors that contribute to negative emotions in a veterinary setting and how these can be addressed. We briefly summarise the available evidence for the interventions discussed. The set-up of the waiting area (e.g., spatial dividers; elevated places for cat carriers), tailoring the examination and the treatment to the individual, considerate handling (minimal restraint when possible, avoiding leaning over or cornering animals) and offering high-value food or toys throughout the visit can promote security and, ideally, positive associations. Desensitisation and counterconditioning are highly recommended, both to prevent and address existing negative emotions. Short-term pain from injections can be minimised by using tactile and cognitive distractions and topical analgesics, which are also indicated for painful procedures such as ear cleanings. Recommendations for handling fearful animals to minimise aggressive responses are discussed. However, anxiolytics or sedation should be used whenever there is a risk of traumatising an animal or for safety reasons. Stress-reducing measures can decrease fear and stress in patients and consequently their owners, thus strengthening the relationship with the clients as well as increasing the professional satisfaction of veterinary staff

Reliability of an avoidance distance test for the assessment of animals’ responsiveness to humans and a preliminary investigation of its association with farmers’ attitudes on bull fattening farms

International audienceIn many farm animal species, the relationship to humans affects their welfare considerably. But until now, on-farm studies on fattening bulls have been limited. A feasible, reliable methodology for assessing responses of bulls to humans Would be helpful for large scale surveys on this topic. Measuring avoidance distance at the feeding place (ADF) to assess animals' relationship to humans was shown to be a feasible and stable measure in dairy cow herds. So, the main objective of this study was to investigate reliability aspects of measuring avoidance distance at the feeding place towards an unknown experimenter on bull fattening farms. Moreover, we were interested in the potential confounding factor age of animals, and, on a preliminary level, a possible relationship of responsiveness of bulls to farmers' attitudes. With regard to reliability, between-experimenter repeatability - the repeatability of ADF when carried out by different experimenters within short time - was evaluated by two experimenters in a balanced order with 602 fattening bulls on 10 farms. The experimenter was both the stimulus person and the person collecting the data. Between-experimenter repeatability was analysed at an individual and at farm level. We recorded the median and mean values of avoidance distances [ADF median, ADF mean] per farm and the percentages of bulls accepting to be touched [ADF % touch] or showing avoidance distances greater than 20 cm [ADF % > 0.2 m]. Inter-observer reliability, based on individual observations recorded by an experimenter and an observer simultaneously, was tested on six farms. Farmers were asked to complete a questionnaire in order to assess their attitudes (behavioural beliefs and affective attitudes) towards interacting with bulls. Generally, inter-observer reliability for ADF was high (r(s) > 0.9, n = 288/297). At an individual level, moderate between-experimenter repeatability could be attained (r(s) = 0.6, n = 469). At farm level (n = 10), Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r(s)) for between-experimenter repeatability ranged from >0.4 to 0.7. A low negative correlation was found between ADF and age at an individual level (r(s) = -0.14, P = 0.015, n = 320). Despite the rather low range of avoidance distances observed between farms, ADF correlated significantly with some of the farmers' attitudes. ADF was lower in case of farmers expressing more positive affective attitudes towards contacts with the animals (significantly so for the measures ADF mean and ADF % > 0.2 m [P < 0.05]). In conclusion, the use of the avoidance distance test at the feeding place (ADF) is promising for assessing the responses of fattening bulls to humans due to its feasibility, reliability and sensitivity both at an individual and at farm level. Based on a limited number of farms, our first exploration of the relationships between farmers' attitudes and responses of bulls to humans in the home environment suggests possible links that require further investigations. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Reliability and inter-test relationship of tests for on-farm assessment of dairy cows’ relationship to humans

International audienceAnimals' relationship to humans, i.e., their perception of humans, is an important parameter to be included into on-farm welfare assessment schemes. The objectives of this study were to evaluate interobserver reliability and between-experimenter repeatability of three previously used and two new tests feasible for on-farm assessment of animals' relationship to humans in loose-housed dairy cows. Additionally, inter-test relationships were analysed to obtain first information on the potential validity of the two new tests. Two experimenters performed five tests (avoidance distance test at the feeding place [AvoidF] and in the barn [AvoidB], approach test to a stationary human in the barn [Appr], passing and touching lying animals [LyingPT], walking through the herd and trying to touch animals [WalkT]) on 16 commercial dairy farms in a balanced order. The person actually not testing the cows observed and recorded the test results from a distance (observer). Inter-observer reliability was investigated by relating results of observer and experimenter. Between-experimenter repeatability, comprising inter-observer reliability as well as consistency of reactions of animals to humans, was evaluated by correlating the test results of both experimenters. Observer or experimenter biases were evaluated by testing for significant differences. High inter-observer reliability was found for all tests under consideration: correlation coefficients exceeded 0.9, percentage agreement for LyingPT was 100%, and negligible observer biases were found. Between-experimenter repeatability of the two avoidance distance tests (AvoidF and AvoidB) was high to very high (r = 0.7 to >0.9), both at an individual as well as at herd level. Evaluated at herd level, LyingPT was also highly repeatable (r = 0.7), whereas WalkT and Appr showed only moderate (0.4 to = 0.7 vertical bar on one component. In sum, regarding reliability and convergent validity, both avoidance distance tests can be recommended as tests for assessing the cows' relationship to humans. In addition, the high interrelationship between WalkT and the avoidance distance test in the barn (AvoidB) makes WalkT a promising test for further development despite the absence of sufficient between-experimenter repeatability in the present study. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved